Response to the Governor's Office 23 September, 2011.

September 23, 2011.

Dear Mr Grayson,

I accepted an invitation on June 13, 2011 to help a group of Citrus County freeholders affected by the expansion of sewer systems into areas of Citrus County. One of those freeholders has sent to me a copy of your letter dated September 1, 2011, addressed to a Ms. Edna Mattos (whom I have never met nor spoken with). (The Foundation of which I am a director assists the teaching of high school and College students in Environmental Science and educates the general public. It conducts research into a wide range of issues, although not usually as acutely focused as such a specific sewer project.) I am writing to you as the research we have done may be helpful to you.

The fifth paragraph of your letter reads as follows:

"Circumstances surrounding the Crystal River connection requirement were initiated locally in 1999. Based on environmental testing performed at that time, it was determined that installation of a wastewater collection and disposal system was necessary for the public health, safety and general welfare of the County and its citizens in the Fort Island Trail corridor and other unincorporated areas of Citrus County and those in close proximity of the Crystal River and King's Bay area. Under an interlocal agreement, the City was required to construct a wastewater collection and disposal system for the area and the County was required to create a Municipal Service Benefit Unit and special assessment districts for funding purposes. Public hearings on the issue were held on December 7, 2010, May 24, 2011, and again on June 28, 2011, to further vet the issue. Public testimony was permitted at those meetings."

At a meeting at the Citrus County offices in Lecanto on August 4, 2011, I had explained how the highlighted text above was completely in error when viewed alongside the actual application submitted by the City of Crystal River to FDEP on July 22, 1999. No such environmental testing was cited in the application. Moreover, not only has that statement been erroneously averred as fact in the interlocal agreement and in the associated Municipal Service Benefit Unit Ordinance 2010-04 but also features as the major premise of the COUNTY Document, "CRYSTAL RIVER SEWER ASSESSMENT" that was given to me at a July meeting in the Lecanto government complex.

Clearly the Governor's Office have been given cause to rely upon that same false statement.

Your above quoted paragraph is also in error in concluding that the MSBU and assessment districts were for funding purposes whereas the Project was completely funded with public money as described in The Financially Disadvantaged Small Community Grant Agreement SG583140, Subsection 1.01(8) - per, its Amendment 2, date stamped, Nov 08 2004.

Allow me, please, to explain as statements at public meetings have been less than clear. The DSC grant SG583140 provides for 85% of the total cost of each project segment as reimbursement to the City. Its Associated Loan SG58316S (a 20 year loan at 2.55% maximum) provides for the remaining 15% of total cost. FDEP advise that the term and rate are to allow recovery from homeowners over that term. However, the interlocal agreement and the assessment demands recovery in one lump sum. In cases of hardship the City and County may allow repayment over lesser terms at between 6 and 11% p.a. Also the SHIP assistance could be applied for. City correspondence suggests the lump sum due on demand c. $3,000. In addition, the City and the County cite the "expansion" or "hook up" fee at $3,425. This latter amount, charged to those homeowners embraced by the interlocal agreement would add a minimum $1,452,400 to the City purse notwithstanding the full reimbursement to the City of those expansion costs from the DSC Grant and Loan public funding. Various miscellaneous charges upon the affected freeholders (homeowners) are stated to exceed between $950 and $1,650 (administrative costs yet to be calculated are said to increase the burden still further). If assessments are made upon vacant lots as is apparently planned, the burden upon freeholders and reward to the City would increase commensurately.

I am aware of F.S.381.00655, but have also heeded the state DofH General Counsel who softened the starkness of the statute considerably. F.S.381.00655 is a health department concern which may be waived but the DofH retains the right to over-ride waiver when in the public health interest to do so. The 365 day imperative is set in a context absent of any waiver of the mandated connection.

I was not aware of the detail concerning Senate Bill 550. I am not aware of a Phase III Nitrogen Reduction Study although I am aware of the science literature and the importance of the Nitrogen balance with respect to water quality especially as volumes of spring discharges into the Florida Outstanding Water of Kings Bay have reduced by a third over the past two decades while Nitrogen concentrations have not. Increasing nitrogen trends are being recorded on some groundwater flow paths most notably those serving Hunter Spring Run.

I have drawn attention to the words of the Florida Attorney General, Robert A. Butterworth, in an Advisory Legal Opinion, AGO 90-75 Dated: September 11, 1990,(obtained from the current Attorney General's website) and questioned whether the circumstances addressed by Ordinance 2010-04 fall within that interpretation. The Foundation does not have standing to request a referral.

I enclose below an article for publication in the local Newspaper as a way to illustrate the broader perspective (the Newspaper would supply the headline).

We have extensive documentation both as research narrative and copies of original project documentation should you wish further clarification.

Sincerely, Norman Hopkins